The above-cited U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/022,718 discloses a system generally involving electronic meters and automatic meter reading, and more particularly TCP/IP-enabled electronic utility meters for remote two-way access over local and wide area networks. The present invention is related in that it involves the use of TCP/IP-enabled, extensible utility meters in a new business model and system. Further background information about the business model aspect of the present invention is provided below.
Business Models
Currently, meter manufacturers sell meters to make money. Some revenue is generated from metering system sales, but these systems are generally viewed as just another mechanism for selling additional meters. Meter manufacturers compete by providing better metering capabilities and functionality at a lower price.
Any given type of meter, whether it is water, electric, energy, or gas, measures a bounded set of quantities. These quantities represent the raw data collected by the device. Meter manufacturers cannot use this raw metered data as a way to differentiate themselves from their competitors. Therefore, at the factory, they load their meter's firmware with embedded capabilities, improved accuracy, or other applications (e.g., time of use (TOU), power quality (PQ) and/or alarm monitoring). These firmware applications use the meter's core set of data to compute the information that their meter data users (MDUs) need. To hedge against the uncertainty of deregulation, meter data users (such as utility distribution companies (UDC), energy service providers (ESP), or meter data management agencies (MDMA), etc.) often purchase, at a low price, fully capable meters with all or some of their capabilities disabled (i.e., “turned off”). When additional functionality is needed, the MDU must purchase a license (or “key”) that gives it the ability to enable (“turn on”) the desired function in a meter. This method of selectively turning on meter functions allows the meter manufacturer to create new license-based pricing models to make its product more cost competitive. Thus, in reality, the meter must still be manufactured with all of the necessary hardware and applications in order to support the fullest possible range of functionality in an effort to more efficiently address possible future metering needs.
This business model has several drawbacks:                1) increased functionality in the meter requires an increase in processing power (e.g., ROM, RAM, EEPROM, etc.) and a commensurate increase in cost;        2) the memory available “under the glass” in a meter is finite (i.e., in order to add an option you must remove another option or increase the memory);        
3) to upgrade or re-program a meter requires that a meter technician drive to the location, physically remove the meter (or switch it out with a replacement meter) and then return it to the “meter shop” where the upgrade can occur; after the upgrade is complete, the meter must be returned and re-installed;                4) different meters require different interfaces and different communications protocols for retrieving data;        5) increased application complexity in the firmware of the meter leads to a higher probability of errors that may require upgrades;        6) increased application functionality housed in the firmware of the meter typically requires complex configuration or programming of the end-device, which greatly increases the system management, coordination, and synchronization; and        7) meter inventory must be increased in order to accommodate different configurations, functionalities, and versions of metering devices.        
With the advent of improved communication technology, manufacturers are now able to add modem, network, and radio-frequency (RF) connectivity to their meters, thus permitting remote communications between meters and various meter data retrieval systems (e.g., automated meter reading (AMR) systems). However, there are limitations associated with these methods of remote communications:                1) wireless communication with the meter is often limited to off peak hours determined by the various network providers;        2) satellite-based communications are limited to line of sight communication between the meter and the satellite, thus limiting the times when the meter may be contacted;        3) wireless and orbital satellite networks are costly, often billing per byte of data transmitted, thus limiting the amount of data which can effectively be transmitted.        
Existing AMR systems are also limited in that they require several layers of applications and interfaces in order to communicate with connected meters. These layers implement the various communications protocols used by the numerous meter manufacturers and the various communications technologies that can be used to communicate with a meter (e.g., RF communication, satellite-based communication, etc.). As these meters are constantly revised, so are their communications protocols, requiring similar modifications to the AMR system. Industry standards intended to unify the communication and device protocols typically fall short by setting minimum requirements for compliance and/or providing manufacturer-specific mechanisms to allow variability and customizations. Therefore, AMR systems still often require meter-specific knowledge (e.g., communications and device protocols) to read the required data from meters offered by different manufacturers. Even with the current metering standards, the addition of a new or different meter would typically require additions and/or modifications to an AMR system. The increasing variety of meters presents an almost insurmountable challenge to the automated meter reading industry.
Deregulation of the electricity metering industry has created even more challenges. Prior to deregulation, a utility was responsible for generating, distributing, and transmitting electricity as well as purchasing, storing and installing metering devices, collecting metered data and processing customer billing. Now, with deregulation slowly being implemented throughout the United States, those duties and responsibilities that were the exclusive responsibility of the utility can now be divided among several service companies and providers who all need access to the meter and the meter data. All of these companies require access to either the data collected from the metering devices (e.g., power quality, outage, etc.) or to the calculated/processed data (e.g., quadrant data; validated, estimated, and edited (VEE) data, etc.) for their internal use (load management and monitoring, forecasting, etc.).
Today there are two prevailing AMR System business models. We refer to these as: 1) the exclusive ownership model (depicted in FIG. 1), and 2) the service bureau model (depicted in FIG. 2). Certain AMR System deployments utilize a mixture of these two models in order to establish a workable business case, but we will discuss these models individually. FIG. 1 depicts the exclusive ownership business model and shows two scenarios for AMR Systems that utilize public communication networks and private communication networks, or so-called fixed networks. FIG. 2 depicts the service bureau business model and shows two scenarios for AMR Systems that utilize public communication networks and private communication networks. A key difference between the public and private type communication networks is that the private network requires additional up-front cost to deploy the infrastructure of the fixed network to blanket one or more service areas. Although FIGS. 1 and 2 separate the public and private communications, AMR Systems exist that can utilize a combination or mix between public communication networks and private communication networks.
In the exclusive owner business model (FIG. 1), the meter data users (MDUs) (i.e., ESPs, UDCs, MDMAs, etc.) purchase an AMR system with a significant up-front cost. In this business model, a particular MDU that is purchasing an AMR System is typically only interested in how the purchased AMR System will address its specific needs as identified in its business case. The MDU typically develops a business case that justifies the initial AMR System cost based on both measurable and non-measurable benefits. Some of the measurable benefits include:                1) meter reading staff and infrastructure reductions,        2) cost reductions for hard-to-access meter reading,        3) connect/disconnect staff reductions,        4) accurate and timely outage restoration,        5) reduction in theft or tampering.        
Some of the non-measurable benefits include:                1) faster and more frequent meter readings, thus yielding a higher level of customer service/retention,        2) better positioned for competition in a deregulated energy market,        3) ability to provide other types of services (i.e., new rates, flexible billing, etc.),        4) other future uses for the metered information.        
Taken alone, the measurable benefits listed above typically do not justify the expense incurred by purchasing an AMR system. Consequently, the number of large AMR System deployments has not reached expectations.
In the service bureau business model (FIG. 2), a service bureau (e.g., MDMA) purchases an AMR system with a significant up-front cost, and then provides access to the collected meter data to subscriber MDUs. This business case is built on the value of the metered information. It assumes the service bureau will recoup the cost of the AMR system by selling meter reads or metered information to multiple MDUs (ESPs, UDCs, etc.). From the perspective of the MDU, many of the quantifiable and non-quantifiable benefits discussed above can be met using this model, with timely access to the correct set of metered information. In this model, the MDUs do not own and operate the AMR System, which is the responsibility of the service bureau operator. In this model, the MDUs must pay for the information they require. This reduces the up-front costs for the MDUs over purchasing their own AMR System and provides them with a pay-per-use model. The service bureau model could create some conflicts, or perceived conflicts, when competing MDUs utilize the same service bureau for metered information. E.g., how can “MDU 1” differentiate its end-user offerings and services from a competitor, “MDU 2,” that utilizes the same service bureau and consequently has access to the same type of metered information? In the service bureau model, the MDUs need to be able to add value by developing or buying applications that allow them to differentiate themselves from their competitors.
In both business models, the AMR supplier's business case is to develop and sell AMR Systems and maintenance agreements. This business case assumes that the development investment for an AMR System can be recouped through many AMR System sells. In the exclusive owner business model, the AMR System supplier is typically confronted with a customer who wants an AMR System customized to handle his/her specific business processes. These types of AMR System sales usually require the AMR supplier to perform customer specific development. AMR System sells of this type, made by an AMR supplier, increase the AMR supplier's overall development costs, deployment costs, long-term maintenance costs, and upgrade costs. In the service bureau business model, the AMR supplier is confronted with a customer who requires an AMR System that has a different set of requirements from the AMR System of the exclusive ownership model. The AMR System sold to operate as a service bureau must accommodate many different MDUs and their business processes, and must also control access to the metered data. E.g., “ESP A” cannot read the metered information for a customer of “ESP B.” The service bureau AMR System is more complex because this system must accommodate all of the MDU's needs while controlling or limiting access in a secure manner. The AMR System suppliers have a problem in creating a workable business case because they make a significant development investment and cannot afford financially or from a risk management point of view to limit their systems to one business model or the other. In today's uncertain environment, it is not clear if both business models will survive the deregulation evolution. The AMR System suppliers, therefore, must identify a way to develop a system that covers all requirements for both business models, is customizable, flexible, easily adaptable, etc.
In either of the above business models, the MDUs and the service bureau operators are dependent upon the sole AMR System supplier to react quickly to solve system problems, and address new requirements that may evolve from the evolving deregulation process. Since the AMR Systems developed today are proprietary and closed, this dependency upon a sole provider is a weak link in terms of risk management for the MDUs and service bureau operators. Competition within the volatile deregulated environment hinges upon AMR System providers' ability to respond rapidly to customer needs.